On Sunday 09 December 2007 18:42:54 Ian Kelly wrote: > On Dec 9, 2007 6:38 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > An inquiry case does not necessarily limit itself to the rules, merely to the > > current state of the game. The Elephant Contract, being a rule-governed > > contract, is *trivially* part of the current state of the game. > > It's not. You could make the exact same contract without the intent > to have it binding under the rules. Agora agrees to arbitrate it, but > it does not incorporate its definitions as a part of the game state. > > -root >
How, then, can contracts define currencies? Assets? Points? Partnerships? Contests? Why must many of these be reported in Agora as though they *were* part of the game state?
